Depot Manager Another vs Pathlawath Kishan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1213 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1595 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-

cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in

M.V.O.P. No. 2261 of 2008 dated 30.06.2016, the present appeal is filed

by the Appellants/Respondents, who are the Depot Manager, Andhra

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad-2 Depot and

Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, he filed a petition under Section 163-A

of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries

sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 26.6.2008. On the

fateful day, he started from R.C.I. gate and proceeding towards Srisailam

in an auto bearing No. AP 29 U 2476 and on the way at about 8-30 p.m.

when he reached near Devendrapuram Vidyalaya, one RTC bus bearing

No. AP 11 Z 5903 belongs to Hyderabad-2 Depot came from the opposite

direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high

speed and dashed against his auto, as a result, he sustained fracture of

right patella, dislocation of right knee joint, fracture of left styloid radius,

fracture of left wrist, grievous injury to both ears and other serious

injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately he was

shifted to Osmania General Hospital and admitted as inpatient.

According to the petitioner, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy,

earning Rs.5,000/- per month as an auto driver. Due to the injuries

sustained by him in the said accident, he underwent operation and spent

more than Rs.30,000/- towards treatment, medicines, transportation etc.,

apart from extra nourishment and he became permanently disabled and

unfit for driving and lost his earning capacity. Thus the petitioner

claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2.

4. Respondents filed counter disputing the manner in which the

accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the petitioner, nature of

injuries and the treatment taken by him. It is further contended that the

compensation amount granted is highly excessive and therefore, prays to

dismiss the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and

2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of

respondents, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,11,000/- towards compensation

to the petitioner along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till realization against the respondents jointly and

severally.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 and 2-Corporation submitted that the tribunal committed

irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5903 without

there being any acceptable evidence on record and that the tribunal erred

in considering the income of the injured at Rs.48,000/- per annum even

though the petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act

and that the tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability of the

injured as 100% though PW-2 assessed the disability at 35%.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to sustain the

impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the learned Tribunal has

awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

9. Here it is pertinent to state that originally the claim petition filed

under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1989. But the tribunal

without assigning any reason framed issue under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act and decided the issue in favour of the petitioner. However,

based on the evidence on record, the Court can consider Section 166

instead of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In Bhupati Prameela

and others vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others1, the

Division Bench of this Court held as under:

" Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section(4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act."

In view of the above Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the

petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be

treated as an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and

the Tribunal has framed issue on rash and negligence under Section 166

of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly after considering the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal rightly settled the

(2011) 10 SCC 756

issue in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere

with the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioner he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and he

became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity. In order to

prove his case, he examined PW-2 Orthopedic Surgeon, who deposed that

PW-1 came to him with injuries viz., 1) fracture patella right and 2)

fracture of radius left, which are grievous in nature. He further deposed

that Pw-1 cannot walk, sit and squat properly and he assessed the

disability at 35 percent which is partial and permanent in nature and he

cannot discharge his duties as auto driver and issued Ex.A3 certificate to

that effect. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor who

treated the petitioner. Therefore, the tribunal considering the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

rightly taken the functional disability at 100% and fixed the income of the

petitioner at Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying multiplier '17'

awarded an amount of Rs.8,16,000/- towards loss of future earnings.

Further tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards extra

nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.25,000/-

towards pain and sufferance. Thus in all, the tribunal awarded an amount

of Rs.9,11,000/- under various heads. Further the petitioner has not filed

any appeal or cross objections and not disputed the amount awarded by

the tribunal. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

tribunal has rightly awarded the reasonable compensation with well

reasoned calculation. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this

Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the

cogent findings given by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

11. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

14.03.2023.

pgp